I say Jerry Reinsdorf. Not that he is without blame himself too, but Kenny Williams is just a foot soldier acting upon Chairman Cheapskate's orders. KW would not be doing this if we had an owner not out to kick us the fans in the balls.

soltrain21

12-17-2003, 11:54 PM

What is the mess you are talking about?

soxfan26

12-17-2003, 11:55 PM

Didn't the Sox offer Ordonez a new contract which he rejected?

Does that not make a fairly definitive statement about returning in 2004?

Looks like Maggs is to blame.

MRKARNO

12-17-2003, 11:55 PM

I say it's Maggs for not wanting to sign the extension with the Sox that would allow the White Sox to retain some financial flexibility for the next 5 years. Now Maggs will either get an extension or will be dealt at the break for pitching

joecrede

12-17-2003, 11:59 PM

Williams for signing Koch and Konerko to two of the worst contracts east of Arlington, Texas.

PaleHoseGeorge

12-18-2003, 12:00 AM

Who is to blame? Pfft... that's easy. Scott Boras, Arod's agent.

If he hadn't negotiated a $252 million deal *plus* even more money to effectively quash trades, Nomar would be here and Maggs patroling Fenway's outfield.

Now Boras' client is stuck sulking with a last-place team. Nomar hates Boston and Magglio won't even bring us John Barry in trade next July. Ah, but the integrity of the union's collective bargaining agreement has been saved!

Gee, I'm going to sleep well tonght.

MRKARNO

12-18-2003, 12:03 AM

:reinsy
"When in doubt, Blame the fans!"

soxfan26

12-18-2003, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by joecrede
Williams for signing Koch and Konerko to two of the worst contracts east of Arlington, Texas.

RIGHT ON THE MONEY!

KW convinced Maggs that $10m for half a year of work was just not worth it and that he could get better money elsewhere.

Maggs wants to leave, KW is giving him what he wants and making sure the team doesn't loose out before he walks.

rmusacch

12-18-2003, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Who is to blame? Pfft... that's easy. Scott Boras, Arod's agent.

If he hadn't negotiated a $252 million deal *plus* even more money to effectively quash trades, Nomar would be here and Maggs patroling Fenway's outfield.

Now Boras' client is stuck sulking with a last-place team. Nomar hates Boston and Magglio won't even bring us John Barry in trade next July. Ah, but the integrity of the union's collective bargaining agreement has been saved!

Gee, I'm going to sleep well tonght.

The final decision rests with A-rod. Also Tom Hicks agreed to give him that contract.

bc2k

12-18-2003, 12:16 AM

Originally posted by ˇViva Mágglio!
I say Jerry Reinsdorf. Not that he is without blame himself too, but Kenny Williams is just a foot soldier acting upon Chairman Cheapskate's orders. KW would not be doing this if we had an owner not out to kick us the fans in the balls.

I'd say the guy who does players' contracts is to blame, but like you said about KW, he's just a foot soldier of JR. I don't know the exacts of Magglio's contract, but I do know that it is heavily backloaded. If they had spread it out better, we wouldn't be in this situation we're currently in.

You can argue that Magglio isn't worth $14 million per, but you can't say he's not worth the value of his total contract. The way his contract is constructed, and the history of JR's business decisions, it seems like JR never planned on Magglio being in Chicago through 2004. He tried to get the most years at the cheapest possible price out of Magglio.

I would love to know what Magglio and his agent were asking for in the negotiation process with the Sox. It shouldn't have been a question of years like it was with Bartolo or any other pitcher. Magglio is a hitter, but more importantly, a dependable, consistent player, which shows he is not a risk for a long-term contract. I wouldn't think twice of giving Magglio a five year deal. Combine this with the fact that the current market should drive down Magglio's price, and it equals a situation where it should be easy to sign Magglio to an extension. My guess is that JR is lowballing Magglio.

We know he's never taken Sosa "vitamins" or any other illegal substance. The man is a born baseball player and hellava nice guy with class too. You can't say a bad thing about the man or the baseball player. That is a cliche, but it does apply here.

Magglio doesn't whine like Thomas, doesn't miss dozens of games like Alou, doesn't take roids or beat his wife like Sosa, doesn't try to pull everything like Thomas, instead donating money and equipment to the Venezuelan Little League team, respecting and embracing his Sox fans, all while playing consistent, all-around baseball.

Lip Man 1

12-18-2003, 01:56 AM

I seem to recall reading that the Sox offered him a three year 30 million dollar deal which had Uncle Jerry's old friend again 'deferred money" in it.

Naturally it was rejected. Can't blame him. Try again Soxfan 26

Lip

Hangar18

12-18-2003, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by bc2k
I'd say the guy who does players' contracts is to blame, but like you said about KW, he's just a foot soldier of JR. I don't know the exacts of Magglio's contract, but I do know that it is heavily backloaded. If they had spread it out better, we wouldn't be in this situation we're currently in.

You can argue that Magglio isn't worth $14 million per, but you can't say he's not worth the value of his total contract. The way his contract is constructed, and the history of JR's business decisions, it seems like JR never planned on Magglio being in Chicago through 2004. He tried to get the most years at the cheapest possible price out of Magglio.

I would love to know what Magglio and his agent were asking for in the negotiation process with the Sox. It shouldn't have been a question of years like it was with Bartolo or any other pitcher. Magglio is a hitter, but more importantly, a dependable, consistent player, which shows he is not a risk for a long-term contract. I wouldn't think twice of giving Magglio a five year deal. Combine this with the fact that the current market should drive down Magglio's price, and it equals a situation where it should be easy to sign Magglio to an extension. My guess is that JR is lowballing Magglio.

We know he's never taken Sosa "vitamins" or any other illegal substance. The man is a born baseball player and hellava nice guy with class too. You can't say a bad thing about the man or the baseball player. That is a cliche, but it does apply here.

Magglio doesn't whine like Thomas, doesn't miss dozens of games like Alou, doesn't take roids or beat his wife like Sosa, doesn't try to pull everything like Thomas, instead donating money and equipment to the Venezuelan Little League team, respecting and embracing his Sox fans, all while playing consistent, all-around baseball.

EXCELLENT EXCELLENT EXCELLENT POST.

jabrch

12-18-2003, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I seem to recall reading that the Sox offered him a three year 30 million dollar deal which had Uncle Jerry's old friend again 'deferred money" in it.

Naturally it was rejected. Can't blame him. Try again Soxfan 26

Lip

Lip, anything like Sheffield's 3/39 with deferred money? What's with you and the deferred money = Resindorf sucks thing? (or I am I reading that wrong?) Deferred money is just done so the club doesn't go over its debt ceiling. Many clubs do it, including even the spendy Yankees.

Hangar18

12-18-2003, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by bc2k
I wouldn't think twice of giving Magglio a five year deal. Combine this with the fact that the current market should drive down Magglio's price, and it equals a situation where it should be easy to sign Magglio to an extension. My guess is that JR is lowballing Magglio.

Magglio doesn't whine like Thomas, doesn't miss dozens of games like Alou, doesn't take roids or beat his wife like Sosa, doesn't try to pull everything like Thomas, instead donating money and equipment to the Venezuelan Little League team, respecting and embracing his Sox fans, all while playing consistent, all-around baseball.

Which Bears Repeating ..............Were sending away a franchise player

anewman35

12-18-2003, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by Hangar18
Which Bears Repeating ..............Were sending away a franchise player

A franchise player who'll leave as a free agent in a year, anyway...

thepaulbowski

12-18-2003, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by joecrede
Williams for signing Koch and Konerko to two of the worst contracts east of Arlington, Texas.

I believe the Mets still have the worst contracts East of Arlington(i.e. Mo Vaughn).

Hangar18

12-18-2003, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by joecrede
Williams for signing Koch and Konerko to two of the worst contracts east of Arlington, Texas.

Actually, anyone ever heard the rule about getting Burned TWICE? Well, because the SOX were so CHEEEEEEP and trying to avoid Arbitration with a Keith Foulke, so they basically "Traded" salaries and got Billy Koch, and tried to sell SOX fans on "Hey, hes a real closer, throws 100 mph, and hes Cheaper in the long run". Well as we see, WE GOT BURNED trying to be cheapskates. We lost a Legitimate Closer, got a "cheaper" Damaged one, and because We Were CHEAP, ended up Losing the Division by 4 Games because of our Managers Lineups AND our stupid CLOSER. Now Because We were so CHEEEEP, were trying to unload his Salary too, and surprise, NOONE wants it..... so NOW we have to Lose
a Better Player because of this nonsensical way of thinking ....

anewman35

12-18-2003, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by Hangar18
Actually, anyone ever heard the rule about getting Burned TWICE? Well, because the SOX were so CHEEEEEEP and trying to avoid Arbitration with a Keith Foulke, so they basically "Traded" salaries and got Billy Koch, and tried to sell SOX fans on "Hey, hes a real closer, throws 100 mph, and hes Cheaper in the long run". Well as we see, WE GOT BURNED trying to be cheapskates. We lost a Legitimate Closer, got a "cheaper" Damaged one, and because We Were CHEAP, ended up Losing the Division by 4 Games because of our Managers Lineups AND our stupid CLOSER. Now Because We were so CHEEEEP, were trying to unload his Salary too, and surprise, NOONE wants it..... so NOW we have to Lose
a Better Player because of this nonsensical way of thinking ....

In retrospect, yes, Koch was a bad trade, I don't think anybody denies that. If it had went the other way, though, and Koch had a 40 save season (and it could have, he'd had a few great seasons in a row), the trade would have looked just fine. Any trade is a gamble, that fact doesn't automatically make trades a bad idea.

FoulkeFan

12-18-2003, 10:28 AM

I'm amazed that so many people want to blame Magglio for this. It seems to me that most people would want to be paid fair market value for their services. And no one knows the details of the discussions that went on between Magglio and the Sox. What we DO know is that the Sox try to get players on the cheap and that they haven't tried very hard to retain even reasonably priced players (Everett, Alomar, Tony G). What we also know is that no player in their right mind would choose to play for the Sox for less money than they could get somewhere else, especially if they can play for a team with a commitment to winning, not just the bottom line. It's hard for me to see what Magglio has done wrong here, other than put up great numbers for the Sox and not sign a contract for less than he would probably get somewhere else.

Hangar18

12-18-2003, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by anewman35
In retrospect, yes, Koch was a bad trade, I don't think anybody denies that. If it had went the other way, though, and Koch had a 40 save season (and it could have, he'd had a few great seasons in a row), the trade would have looked just fine. Any trade is a gamble, that fact doesn't automatically make trades a bad idea.

The Bottom Line is.....if were making a TRADE based on player needs etc etc, thats one thing. But Any Trade thats Financially Motivated always HURTS in the Long Run. The Sox run their team like a bunch of Cons running a Shell Game.

jabrch

12-18-2003, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by anewman35
A franchise player who'll leave as a free agent in a year, anyway...

A franchise player who said he wants 5/75 - just too much and too long for my liking.

anewman35

12-18-2003, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by Hangar18
But Any Trade thats Financially Motivated always HURTS in the Long Run.

Do those sort of trades sometimes hurt? Sure. Always? Of course not. How many times do you see a trade where a big expensive star is traded for cheap prospects, and then the cheap prospects end up becoming stars on their own? (Answer, for those playing at home: Quite often).

PaulDrake

12-18-2003, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by Hangar18
EXCELLENT EXCELLENT EXCELLENT POST. I second that. Damn fine post by bc2k.

PaulDrake

12-18-2003, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by anewman35
Do those sort of trades sometimes hurt? Sure. Always? Of course not. How many times do you see a trade where a big expensive star is traded for cheap prospects, and then the cheap prospects end up becoming stars on their own? (Answer, for those playing at home: Quite often). Then they want paid just like the player you originally traded. It's never ending.

anewman35

12-18-2003, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by PaulDrake
Then they want paid just like the player you originally traded. It's never ending.

Yes, they do, but hopefully you've had them good and cheap for a few years. Teams can build good teams on no money, they just have to know when to trade their expensive players for young prospects (and correctly scout those prospects).

duke of dorwood

12-18-2003, 11:14 AM

This regime just makes players want to leave. Remember Robin Ventura? Its the owner and his policies that are to blame. Its simply a rinky dink organization.

duke of dorwood

12-18-2003, 11:19 AM

I dont know what some of you fans feel you owe Reinsdorf? He owns a team in a sport where he refuses to play by the rules of maintaining a competitive organization, and cries about money. Get out of the game, or own a minor league team. He seems well cast for that role.

Bobby Thigpen

12-18-2003, 11:21 AM

and cries about money.

Ummmm, hate to break it to you, but they all whine about money except George, Boston, the Braves, and the Cardinals.

Mammoo

12-18-2003, 11:56 AM

All the cheapskate owners who treated ballplayers like **** back in the day!!!

If families like the Comiskeys (White Sox), Yawkeys (Red Sox), Wrigleys (Cubs), McPhail/Topping (Yankees) and Griffiths (Senators) had any vision, they may have seen days like this coming.

They had it all their own way for so many years, cutting guys pay after hitting .300 or reneging on promises. Their inability to comprehend the ultimate illegality of the reserve clause turned out to be their undoing.

Curt Flood, Andy Messersmith and Marvin Miller took advantage and the rest is history.

Lip Man 1

12-18-2003, 03:03 PM

Jabrch:

I have no trouble with "deferred money." It has obviously worked for the D-Backs and Yankees among others. But why doesn't it work for the Sox? Why do they keep trying this approach when every player they asks says 'no.'

I think it's because unlike the D-Backs and Yankees, most players (and more importantly their agents) do not trust the White Sox organization and specifically the owner.

It's one thing for the Yanks or D-backs to say, 'we'd like to defer some money,' because I feel those agents think that they will then take that money and use it on other good players. Have the Sox done that? What has the Sox on field results been for the past five / six years? (Answer: Average record: 83-79).

Right or wrong, perception becomes reality and when you think of the White Sox from an agent's point of view, you remember the White Flag Deal, the treatment of Carlton Fisk, the treatment of Robin Ventura, the owner asking to meet with A-Rod without his agent present, the recent public spat between Robbie Alomar and Williams, Frank Thomas' 'diminished skills' deal, the 'play for pay' performance contracts pushed by the owner in the late 80's that the courts said violated the basic agreement between players and the owners, and an attitude that suggests arrogance, vindictiveness and a "my way or the highway" approach.

That's not exactly conductive to asking good players to take less money now when they can get it upfront elsewhere don't you think?

Lip

anewman35

12-18-2003, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I have no trouble with "deferred money." It has obviously worked for the D-Backs and Yankees among others. But why doesn't it work for the Sox? Why do they keep trying this approach when every player they asks says 'no.'

Maybe the players always say no because they check out WSI before signing and get depressed by how negative you are...

Hangar18

12-18-2003, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Jabrch:

I think it's because unlike the D-Backs and Yankees, most players (and more importantly their agents) do not trust the White Sox organization and specifically the owner.

It's one thing for the Yanks or D-backs to say, 'we'd like to defer some money,' because I feel those agents think that they will then take that money and use it on other good players. Have the Sox done that? What has the Sox on field results been for the past five / six years? (Answer: Average record: 83-79).

Right or wrong, perception becomes reality and when you think of the White Sox from an agent's point of view, you remember the White Flag Deal, the treatment of Carlton Fisk, the treatment of Robin Ventura, the owner asking to meet with A-Rod without agent present.....

That's not exactly conductive to asking good players to take less money now when they can get it upfront elsewhere don't you think?

Lip

I AGREE Wholeheartedly

soxfan26

12-18-2003, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Jabrch:

I have no trouble with "deferred money." It has obviously worked for the D-Backs and Yankees among others. But why doesn't it work for the Sox? Why do they keep trying this approach when every player they asks says 'no.'

I think it's because unlike the D-Backs and Yankees, most players (and more importantly their agents) do not trust the White Sox organization and specifically the owner.

It's one thing for the Yanks or D-backs to say, 'we'd like to defer some money,' because I feel those agents think that they will then take that money and use it on other good players. Have the Sox done that? What has the Sox on field results been for the past five / six years? (Answer: Average record: 83-79).

Right or wrong, perception becomes reality and when you think of the White Sox from an agent's point of view, you remember the White Flag Deal, the treatment of Carlton Fisk, the treatment of Robin Ventura, the owner asking to meet with A-Rod without his agent present, the recent public spat between Robbie Alomar and Williams, Frank Thomas' 'diminished skills' deal, the 'play for pay' performance contracts pushed by the owner in the late 80's that the courts said violated the basic agreement between players and the owners, and an attitude that suggests arrogance, vindictiveness and a "my way or the highway" approach.

That's not exactly conductive to asking good players to take less money now when they can get it upfront elsewhere don't you think?

Lip

Your problem obviously is not with deferred money, it's with the whole organization. The owner, the GM, the whole group of them. Which bears the question, how can you be a diehard fan of something that you hate?

If you honestly think Maggs is worth $14-15m a year then that is where we differ. I don't care how many little league teams he supports, or who he works out with in the offseason. His numbers do not warrant that kind of superstar money.

The "fair market value" argument is loosing all validity as well. What is fair market value? Whatever the Boss or Tom Hicks says it is?